RAJIV RANJAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The present writ application was filed as it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that pursuant to the order dated 14-8-2002 he had already assumed the charge of Junior Engineer in the Hardinge Road Section of the Central Building Division and by order dated 6-9-2002 Respondent No. 6, who was holding the said post was transferred on the next date i.e. on 7-9-2002 by Annexure-4. The transfer of the petitioner has been rescinded along with Respondent No. G. The aforesaid order has been challenged as the same suffers from the vice of mala-fide.

(3.) The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the services of 31 Junior Engineers of the Road Construction Department was transferred to the Building Construction Department and two of them including the petitioner gave their joining in the Building Construction Department and as such they were required to be posted. Order of posting of the petitioner to the Hardinge Road Section of the Central Building Division was passed. However, for the reasons best known to theauthorities just on the next date the aforesaid order has been reversed and mala-fide had been alleged. As such this Court by its order dated 7-10-2002 while issuing notice to Respondent No. 6, the subsequent order as contained in Annexure-4 was stayed. On 14-11-2002 when the matter had been taken up, heard the parties at length and specific allegations were made by both the sides that transfer of petitioner as well as Respondent No. 6 was being done as the same was being politically influenced by member of the Legislative Assembly, Rather it was contended by Respondent No. 6 that the petitioner got himself posted by a recommendation made by a M.L.A. and when the petitioner met the Engineer-in-chief and explained his case that he had not worked or the usual period of posting at a place and other circumstances as to why he was required to be kept in Patna, the aforesaid decision has been taken. On which it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that actually the Respondent No. 6 has also used his influence by a M.L.A. and endorsement by the Minister of the Department. This Court having no option has to call for the records as to whether the transfer has been done through the establishment committee or not.